TR Member Perks!

Sometimes, a headline is clear as day. Other times, a story has so many potential factors that its tough to decide which one deserves the featured place. Where do we start with Battlefield 1‘s season pass? Do we start at the fact that you have to pay $50 to get the Season Pass? Do we discuss the fact that the two nations the pass includes are central to World War 1 and it’s insane that they aren’t in the base game? Do we talk about the fact that Battlefield 1 continues to use map packs, something that has proven problematic for many multiplayer driven experiences, including DICE’s Star Wars Battlefront?

I guess I should be thankful for EA providing me with the whole list of angles to take here with the announcement of the Battlefield 1 Season Pass. They didn’t even charge me for it, which I’m sure is an oversight on someone’s part.

The newly announced Premium Pass will be expanding the gameplay for the highly anticipated and confusingly named entry in the series, Battlefield 1. It appears to be structured similarly to the Star Wars Battlefront season pass in that it will be delivered in four digital expansion packs, each with a collection of content, and that season pass purchasers will have two weeks early access to the content compared to those who chose to buy them individually. 

Here is a quick overview of the content promised to be coming throughout the Battlefield 1 Premium Pass period:

  • France and Russian armies playable
  • 16 Multiplayer Maps
  • New Operations and Game Modes
  • New Elite Classes
  • 20 New Weapons
  • New Vehicles
  • 14 Battlefield 1 Battlepacks, to be delivered monthly starting in November 2016
  • 14 Unique dog tags distributed over the course of the Battlefield 1 Premium Pass period

What is the Premium Pass period you ask?  That hasn’t been explained anywhere yet and seems to be an attempt to be intentionally vague. While EA’s Press Release states that the Battlefield 1 page will have details and release dates on what is coming up, at this time, that page contains less information then what was provided in the press release. 

We do know that the first DLC Set will be arriving in March 2017 and is titled They Shall Not Pass. It will feature the addition of the French army for multiplayer, and presumably with that title will also have some notable maps based on locations on the western front where the line was held. That, however, is speculation, as EA appears to prefer to be vague about it at this time.

Battlefield 1 will be releasing October 21st, 2016 on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC. You will be able to try it out at the end of August in an open beta.


Quick Take

Okay. If you want to charge $60 for your game, and have micro-transactions, AND have a Season Pass, you should do a better job of explaining what is in your season pass. Battlefront had a similar issue and its season pass has left many users disappointed with it as the cost mounts and PC users were especially so due to the fact that there’s a small player-base on the platform. Also, given that France and Russia were two of the major players in the war, it is in my mind insane that they are DLC. You expressed doubts people know the war overall EA, well that means that you have a greater responsibility to at least present some decent information on it. The weapons you are using are going to be a lot of specialized ones and rarities, sure, but why is America in there instead of two nations that were at the forefront of their respective fronts?

Do you think $50 is too much for a Season Pass? Do you think France and Russia should be in base Battlefield 1? Will any of this impact your decision to buy the game? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

More About This Game

Don Parsons

News Editor

I've been a gamer for years of various types starting with the Sega Genesis and Shining Force when I was young. If I'm not playing video games, I'm often roleplaying, reading, writing, or pondering things brought up by speculative fiction.



  • BurntToShreds

    As games become more expensive to make, more developers are going to experiment with ways to support post-launch maintenance and content after the initial purchase. USD$64.94 doesn’t go as far as it used to, and your average consumer still hasn’t been clued in on that fact, despite being presented with countless AAA games that have done the same thing over the last few years.

    The reason why America is one of the countries in the main game is because the U.S. is their biggest market. Your average purely AAA gamer probably couldn’t name half of the belligerents in WWI off the top of their head.

  • SevTheBear

    The sad truth :/

    Just hate that devs and publishers are tearing more and more out of the games to then later sell it to us a paid DLC

  • SevTheBear

    For 50$ DLC… then it better be worth it (which it rarely is). Most season pass are waste or total ripoff. I have yet to be lured into buying one.

    If games has become that more expensive, jack the price up with 5-10$ instead of this DLC BS would be better. I know for some this sounds like a dumb idea. But there is no doubt that making games bigger with voice acting, better effects and more content demands more money to make them. Yet I think it’s save to say much of the DLC is pure greed from the publishers side.

  • Scootinfroodie

    While this is true, I’d love it if the process over the next decade or so became making production of assets and mechanics cheaper, thus putting more priority on good mechanics and making games a less risky venture, rather than the other way around. I get the sense that some companies are doing this already but it really ought to be a more widespread and prioritized practice.

    While it makes sense to excessively beautify games that are guaranteed to sell, as it helps to keep that game above any other competition, there’s really no need to risk so much on newer or more niche properties. I’d rather they get scaled back than axed altogether.

    Unfortunately consumer demands (on consoles, ironically) are for better and more demanding tech improvements, often (but not always) at the cost of gameplay depth or quality.

  • Jumanji Joe

    You know what would REALLY help with the budget? Not dropping more than double the games development costs on overblown marketing.

  • Bitterbear

    B-but the SJWs working in Marketing also need to eat*.

    *They should try to eat less though.

  • midnightgreen20

    I’m gonna suggest this totally revolutionary idea to help solve this problem… What if EA focused on making a game that would sell lots of copies, and then use the profits to make additional content free of charge? Having a season pass with content already being planned out to add into the game certainly reeks of milking the consumer for everything that they have, which will certainly turn people away from buying the game. But if you plan on making it free for everyone, it could turn in your favor. It certainly is part of the reason that Overwatch has had the success it has so far.

  • Robert Grosso

    The alternative it to simply bite the bullet and raise costs for purchase…but to match inflation games need to be close to $100 bucks new instead of $60.

    There is no way it will go cheaper though. No way the general gaming audience will accept that at this point.

  • Scootinfroodie

    By cheaper I mean in terms of methodology. This is already happening to an extent with iterative franchises. Not every W-Force game has a brand new roster. The mainstay Dynasty and Samurai Warriors series can get away with minor roster improvements and 3 full-priced releases every year. For a more AAA oriented example, yearly sports franchises don’t need to be rebuilt from scratch once a year, and iteratively improve when the focus isn’t on tech. I think the trick though is finding a more efficient method for completing the art portion of the game without massively inflating the budget or causing it to look “bad” to your average consumer

    Consider though that we live in a world where the relatively low budget ___ Souls series is considered visually striking and sometimes even pretty. On the flip side you have projects like Dead Space 3 and Tomb Raider 2013, where sales expectations are massive and potentially franchise-ending. I think the question the industry really needs to ask is “would people actually notice if we removed support for Nvidia TressFX for our character’s nose and ear hair?” while also figuring out an efficient pipeline for the assets that *are* needed.

    Heck, you can even just focus on keeping things as good as they look now, for the next little while (keep that current gen going) and work on more efficiently using available resources and tech

    When costs go down, the marketing budget will too, because you don’t need mass amounts of people to know about your game for it to be profitable. It can start surviving on word of mouth, or on more financially responsible hype trains

    I say this, as well, as someone who watched as multiple local studios shut down over tax breaks and minor flops (and they weren’t all little indie operations either). This high risk high reward method of development hurts the industry, and you can bet that people are already looking for solutions, it’s just a question of how highly those solutions are prioritized